Is death by vivisection or eaten by an animal more disturbing?

Answer 1

Vivisection would be worse.
I would submit to being part of the food chain if I had to be a nice light snack for a lion or shark. At least it's natural.

Answer 2

Much rather go by vivisection. At least I'm being taken out by another human.

Loosing the life game to an animal is just pathetic.

Answer 3

I vote for vivisection. being eaten seems almost natural, part of the food chain and all. Plus I'm betting many more humans have been eaten than killed by vivisection.
Viv would (I think) make me very aware of how much that person must hate me.

Answer 4

Death by vivisection is far more disturbing because it involves willful cruelty and murder. A man-eating animal is just a man-eating animal; there's nothing creepy about it.

Answer 5

Death, by any means, is disturbing to most. We'd all like to live forever, wouldn't we? I certainly would like to live a very long time; but, not necessarily as a human. I'd like to beleive that death is just a portal to another world/life/etc where we can try something else once we've worn out our current experience. I like to think of my 'body' as something I can occasionally swap out for something different. How boring it would be if we had to be human for all eternity, without the opportunity to try other life forms... I'd love to know what it feels like to be, for instance, a cat... or a butterfly... or a bird... or any number of other creatures.

Answer 6

The animal will probably kill me faster, so vivesection would be worse.

On the other hand, if they're considerate enough to anesthetise me first, it wouldn't be a bad way to go at all. One just falls asleep. As long as I'm not conscious when they cut me open I don't care.

I don't find either one more disturbing than the other in principle. You end up dead either way.